editor
hiraethified
Err, right here:
Pop Brixton
It's not me that's got a problem with the facts here. Jason was completely correct. I trust you'll now apologise for your unfounded slur.
Pop Brixton (formerly Grow Brixton) Pope's Road development
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
They could have made money, broken even, or traded at a loss; they would have still got it in the neck from Urban75
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Too be fair to snowy Jason actually says "The accounts explain that Pop Brixton hopes to break even by the summer of 2018." And he's right to question where that information came from because the accounts clearly don't show that.
From a cursory glance, Pop's write up about where their money comes from and goes appears to be quite candid.
From a cursory glance, Pop's write up about where their money comes from and goes appears to be quite candid.
editor
hiraethified
I wonder why it took so long for Pop to produce these accounts after it was originally stated that they would appear back in February 2016. Six months seems very overdue - especially for a 'community' focused project gifted rent free land - but no doubt some posters will be along shortly to make excuses for them.
When I used to book security they were paid per hour. I doubt they got any of those benefits.
I'm just saying, otherwise we'd all want to be security guards.
editor
hiraethified
Security guards are generally on very low rates of pay - I'd be surprised if they're even paid the London Living Wage, let alone lavished with a portfolio of employer benefits.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
I see. Why did you choose to book them like that?
Because I had to, that's how it's worked and they were a preferred supplier.
Poor buggers had to make their way home at all hours of the night knackered. Most of them were doing two or three jobs.
editor
hiraethified
Well one poster seemed to think it was because Pop was a #1 terrorist target, but that seems remarkably unlikely.
I'd guess that it's more to do with the venue's increasing focus as a booze-serving, nightclub/tourist trap, as evidenced by the bolt-on, twin bar Pop Fields which seemed mainly concerned with attracting drinkers for sports events.
editor
hiraethified
I know several security guards and they're all on pretty awful pay with very few benefits. It's a real shitty job.
discobastard
Well-Known Member
No excuses here but all the relevant info is online regards accounting rules (plus Pop filing history):
POP BRIXTON LIMITED - Filing history (free information from Companies House)
Change your company's year end - GOV.UK
A guide to accounting reference dates and periods | Companies House
aka
Brixton Hill
Mostly what I glean from that set of accounts is:
1) not much - as they are from history (like all sets of accounts)
2) they published much more than they needed to (usually only HMRC see all the back pages)
3) they had limited cash at the balance sheet date - hand to mouth cash wise...
4) very tough every day to have to run that business given 3.
5) £1m plus was borrowed/lent from someone (who didn't require a 'charge' on the assets (!?)) to build it, that needs paid back.
I'd be astonished if the enterprise makes any serious EBITDA, never mind any actual profit. Not through creative accounting, just because it is costly to run and there is only so much rent the Pizza Place and Noodle Place and Impact Place can/will pay. Fixating on the donation would be a mistake as it's just an accounting classification and 'disclosure' requirement. Ditto the Accounting Reference Date. £1.25m to build POP isn't that costly really psf.
Point 5 is the interesting one.
1) not much - as they are from history (like all sets of accounts)
2) they published much more than they needed to (usually only HMRC see all the back pages)
3) they had limited cash at the balance sheet date - hand to mouth cash wise...
4) very tough every day to have to run that business given 3.
5) £1m plus was borrowed/lent from someone (who didn't require a 'charge' on the assets (!?)) to build it, that needs paid back.
I'd be astonished if the enterprise makes any serious EBITDA, never mind any actual profit. Not through creative accounting, just because it is costly to run and there is only so much rent the Pizza Place and Noodle Place and Impact Place can/will pay. Fixating on the donation would be a mistake as it's just an accounting classification and 'disclosure' requirement. Ditto the Accounting Reference Date. £1.25m to build POP isn't that costly really psf.
Point 5 is the interesting one.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Most security guards I know are on Zero Hours contracts. Even if they have worked in the same place for several years. A security guard I know who has a secure full time job says all the new people they are taking on are on Zero Hours contracts. Its becoming the norm.He got his job with his firm years ago before these firms cottoned on to the advantages ( to the firms) of Zero Hours contracts.
Its really shite and means you have no security of employment. Little access to sick pay etc. The rights that a person who is in secure employment would have. Its all about reducing costs/ risks to the employer.
Last edited:
editor
hiraethified
Pop Brixton doing their bit for the community
Pop Brixton receives ‘community protection warning’ after resident noise complaints
Pop Brixton receives ‘community protection warning’ after resident noise complaints
discobastard
Well-Known Member
Think there may be a typo in there Ed - the letter states there may be a fixed penalty notice for £100.00, while in the article it says £100,000. Big difference!
editor
hiraethified
Oops yes - thanks for spotting that!
Nanker Phelge
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
Wouldn't it be kinda daft for Lambeth to fine Pop loads of dough, thus potentially impacting their own profit down the line...
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Not how it works. Noise complaints are something the Council deal with across the board. Whether its private residential or licensed premises. Supposed to be independent of any interest the Council might have.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I have wondered what the people in the flats behind Pop feel about it. As a few times Ive been past the music has been really loud. This is daytimes and evenings. Must be on a regular basis now.
Its not like this bit of Brixton has a history of outdoor venues.
I would have thought that a project that we keep being told is community focussed would not have got a "community protection warning".
Last edited:
editor
hiraethified
I've got nothing but contempt for selfish wankers who move in next door to established venues and then start whining about the noise that existed way before they turned up, but this is totally different. As you say, there is no history of loud music being played here the increasing noise levels would suggest that Pop are rather contemptuous of the local community.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
That might very well be the case, but I wouldn't draw any conclusions myself based on four complaints.
Nanker Phelge
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
The number of complaints is immaterial.
The officers who deal with noise complaints would not have issued this letter without sufficient grounds. The letter says they have assessed the complaints. Which I take they have been down there themselves.
Having lived in central Brixton I have dealt with noise issues. Officers do not issue letters like this unless they really have to.
It does not reflect well on Pop.
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
So are u saying the Council will go easy on Pop noise complaints as there is a corrupt relationship with the Council and the mge of Pop? That the Council want to make sure they will get there profit share and will make sure that there is no chance that this will go any further in case it hits Pops profits? So the local residents will just have to suffer because of a corrupt collusion between Pop and the Council.
editor
hiraethified
I'll draw conclusions from the loud noise I've heard myself late at night many times and the comments from people I know who live nearby (who are unlikely to have complained, btw).
Lambeth don't dish out these warnings for fun, so I'll be interested to know why are you so reluctant to 'draw conclusions' in what seems such a clear cut case. What other conclusions can be reached?
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Not at all. They get the whole fine. But only half the profits!
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
In this country, as I'm sure you know, it only takes a very few individual complaints for the local authority to step in. So while many of those complaints might be genuine and shared by the local community, others might be just a couple of people or even just one individual complaining out of spite or because that's what floats their boat.
Indeed, another poster said on these boards that the SW4 festival in Clapham has strict restrictions on volume levels every year based on the complaints of a single local resident. Out of a catchment area of thousands. Would you say the organisers are being contemptuous there? What if there were five complaints? What if there were fifty?
So I wouldn't rush to judge Pop as contemptuous to the local community based on four complaints. They might well be, but then it is not less likely the complaints are not fair or representative. We simply don't know from such a small number. If there'd been many dozens of complaints during the time Pop's been open there'd be far less doubt about the issue.
editor
hiraethified
Except these didn't come from one person and the officials agreed that the levels were "significantly louder" than was was acceptable. Why should they have to put up with this new noise?
And, to repeat:
